| Literature DB >> 32225038 |
Lorena Gutiérrez-Puertas1, Verónica V Márquez-Hernández1, Vanesa Gutiérrez-Puertas1, Genoveva Granados-Gámez1, Gabriel Aguilera-Manrique1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nursing students establish therapeutic relationships with their patients and as future nursing professionals, they should be trained to be effective communicators. The objective of this systematic review was to know the impact of educational interventions on nursing students to develop their communication skills with patients.Entities:
Keywords: nurse-patient communication; nursing students; patient-centered communication; systematic review; therapeutic communication; training
Year: 2020 PMID: 32225038 PMCID: PMC7177717 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17072241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Systematic review flow diagram.
Main characteristics of the selected studies.
| Order Number | 1st Author, Date (Country) | MAStARI | Participants | Objetives | Study Design |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Becker et al. 2006 [ | 10 | n = 147 nursing students enrolled in a psychiatric nursing course (IG = 58; CG = 89). | To evaluate knowledge of depression and therapeutic communication skills SP. | Desing: randomized control group. |
| 2 | Baghcheghi et al. 2011 [ | 7 | N = 34 sophomore nursing students (16 IG; 18 CG). | To evaluate the effect of tradicional learning and cooperative learning methods on nursing students´communication with patients. | Design: Experimental, observer-blinder two groups study. |
| 3 | Kim et al. 2012 [ | 7 | n = 70 sophomores nursing students enrolled in a theoretical course in maternity. | To determine the effect of simulation-based education on the communication skill and clinical competence of nursing students in maternity nursing practicum. | Design: quasi-experimental study, two gropup study. |
| 4 | Wittenberg-Lyles et al. 2012 [ | 7 | n = 32 nursing students. | To assess the effects of communication training for the practical nurse. | Design: quasi-experimental pilot study. |
| 5 | Jo and An 2013 [ | 7 | n = 39 nursing students (19 IG; 20 GC) from two universities. | To examine the effects of a humanistic end-of-life care course on South Korean undergraduate nursing students’ attitudes toward death, death anxiety, and communication skills. | Design: quasi-experimental two group study. |
| 6 | Lau and Wang 2013 [ | 7 | n = 62 fourth-year nursing students enrolled CST course. | To develop a learner-centered Communication Skills Training (CST) course; (2) to evaluate the course by comparing scores for communication skills, clinical interaction, interpersonal dysfunction, and social problem-solving ability. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study, two-phase mixed methods |
| 7 | Lin et al. 2013 [ | 9 | n = 26 first year nursing students (14 IG; 12 CG). | To examine the effectiveness of using SP with SP feedback and group discussion to teach Interpersonal and communication skills (IPCS) in nursing education. | Desing: Randomized Controlled Study two group. |
| 8 | Lau and Wang 2014 [ | 7 | n = 59 fourth-year nursing students attended the summer camp program. | To develop a learner-centered educational summer camp program for nursing students and to evaluate the effectiveness of the camp program on enhancing the participants’ communication skills. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study, two-phase mixed methods. |
| 9 | Webster 2014 [ | 7 | n = 89 senior baccalaureate nursing students enrolled in a psychiatric clinical course. | To determine the effectiveness of SPEs as a teaching modality to improve nursing students’ use of therapeutic communication skills with individuals with mental illness. | Design: quasi-experimental, one group study. |
| 10 | Bloomfield et al. 2015 [ | 6 | n = 28 second-year nursing students and fourth-year medical students from a population of N = 180 nursing students and N = 450 medical students. | To design, implement, and evaluate an educational intervention employing simulated patient actors to enhance students’ abilities to communicate with dying patients and their families. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study, two-phase mixed methods. |
| 11 | Yoo and Park 2015 [ | 7 | n = 143 (72 IG; 71 CG) sophomore undergraduate nursing student enrolled in a mandatory health communication course from a population of N = 151. | To evaluate the effectiveness of Case-based learning on undergraduate nursing students in the health communication | Design: quasi-experimental two group study. |
| 12 | Lai 2016 [ | 7 | n = 50 quasi-experimental single group study. | To implement an online video peer assessment system to scaffold their communication skills and to examine the effects and validity of the peer assessment. | Desing: quasi-experimental single group study. |
| 13 | Martin and Chanda 2016 [ | 8 | n = 28 prelicensure nursing students enrolled in a mental health nursing theory and clinical course. | To introduce therapeutic communication simulations with emphasis on symptoms related to psychiatric disorders as a part of mental health theory and clinical courses. | Design: quasi-experimental, one group. |
| 14 | Taghizadeh et al. 2017 [ | 8 | n = 66 last year nursing students and n = 132 patients. | To determine the impact of teaching communication skills to nurse students on the quality of care given by nursing students. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study. |
| 15 | Shorey et al. 2018 [ | 8 | n = 124 first-year undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the nursing course. | To evaluate the effectiveness of blended learning pedagogy in a redesigned communication module among nursing undergraduates in enhancing their satisfaction levels and attitudes towards learning communication module as well as self-efficacy in communication. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study. |
| 16 | Blake and Blake 2019 [ | 5 | n = 32 nursing students in their capstone course from a population of N = 35. | To examine the effects of a nursing lab simulation used to increase the self-efficacy of nursing students with their ability to use effective communication. | Design: quasi-experimental single group. |
| 17 | Donovan and Mullen 2019 [ | 7 | n = 116 undergraduate nursing students registered for three successive mental health nursing courses during academic year from a population of N = 160 (RR 72.5%). | To examine the efficacy of learned classroom therapeutic communication techniques applied to a standardized patient mental health simulated experience. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study. |
| 18 | Gaylle 2019 [ | 7 | n = 65 senior students enrolled in a psychiatric clinical rotation at a public university from a population of N = 67 (RR 97%). (IG = 32; CG = 33). | To explored the effects of in-simulation and postsimulation debriefing on students’ knowledge, performance, anxiety, and perceptions of the debriefing process. | Design: quasi-experimental, two group study. |
| 19 | Ok et al. 2019 [ | 6 | n = 85 third-year nursing students enroled in a course on mental health and psychiatric at two different universities from a population of N = 103 (RR 82.5%). (IG = 52; CG = 33) | To measure the impact of using standardized patient simulation (SPS) prior to clinical practice on the anxiety levels and communication skills. | Design: quaxi-experimental two group |
IG, Intervention Group; CG, Control Group; SP, Standardized Patient; CST, Communication Skills Training; IPCS, Interpersonal Communication Skills; SPEs, Standardized Patient Experiences; SPS, Standardized Patient Simulation.
Intervention characteristics.
| Order Number | 1st Author, Date (Country) | Participants | Study Design | Theoretical | Intervention | Quantitative Measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Becker et al. 2006 [ | n = 147 nursing students enrolled in a psychiatric nursing course (IG = 58; CG = 89). | Design: randomized control group. | Not mentioned. | Simulation—using Standardized | Students: |
| 2 | Baghcheghi et al. 2011 [ | N = 34 sophomore nursing students (16 IG; 18 CG). | Design: Experimental, observer-blinder two groups study. | Not mentioned. | Cooperative learning methods. | Nursing Students’ communication with patient scale. |
| 3 | Kim et al. 2012 [ | n = 70 sophomores nursing students enrolled in a theoretical course in maternity. | Design: quasi-experimental study, two group study. | Not mentioned | Simulation—using high-fidelity patient simulator. | Communication Skills Tool. |
| 4 | Wittenberg-Lyles et al. 2012 [ | n = 32 nursing students. | Design: quasi-experimental pilot study. | Not mentioned | COMFORT communication and consulting course. interactive, educational training session and taught students using a combination of PowerPoint lectures, case studies, small group discussions, and exercises. | Course Experience Questionnarie (CEQ) created by authors for this study. |
| 5 | Jo and An 2013 [ | n = 39 nursing students (19 IG; 20 GC) from two universities. | Design: quasi-experimental two group study. | Not mentioned. | End-of-life- Care course teaching included uses humanistic educational methods such as lectures, group discussion, watching a movie, analysis of novel and poem, appreciation of music, and collage art, role-play, and sharing personal experiences. | Attitudes toward death. |
| 6 | Lau and Wang 2013 [ | n = 62 fourth-year nursing students enrolled CST course. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study, two-phase mixed methods | Not mentioned. | Communication Skills Training (CST) course. Included theoretical lectures and practical components (Immediate feedback; Role Playing; Group discussion; didactical games). | Communication Ability Scale (CAS) |
| 7 | Lin et al. 2013 [ | n = 26 first year nursing students (14 IG; 12 CG). | Design: Randomized Controlled Study two group. | Not mentioned. | Simulation - using SP. Briefing; scenario demonstration; role-playing. | Interpersonal Communication Skills (IPCS) assessment tool. |
| 8 | Lau and Wang 2014 [ | n = 59 fourth-year nursing students attended the summer camp program. | Design: | Not mentioned | Educational Summer Camp Program on Communication Skills—three sharing sessions and five experimental learning games. | Communication Ability Scale (CAS) |
| 9 | Webster 2014 [ | n = 89 senior baccalaureate nursing students enrolled in a psychiatric clinical course. | Design: quasi-experimental, one group study. | Not mecioned. | Simulation—using SP, simulations were video-recorded, watched their video and conducted a self-reflection of strengths and areas for improvement; debriefing conducted by faculty using a problem-based learning approach. | The effectiveness of the use of SPEs to teach therapeutic communication skills in psychiatric nursing ckecklist created by author for this study. |
| 10 | Bloomfield et al. 2015 [ | n = 28 second-year nursing students and fourth-year medical students from a population of N = 180 nursing students and N = 450 medical students. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study, two-phase mixed methods. | Not mentioned. | Simulation—using SP (two scenarios), | students’ perceived levels of confidence, competence, and concern when communicate with dying patients and their families questionnaire created by authors for this study. |
| 11 | Yoo and Park 2015 [ | n = 143 (72 IG; 71 CG) sophomore undergraduate nursing student enrolled in a mandatory health communication course from a population of N = 151. | Design: quasi-experimental two group study. | Not mencioned. | Case-Based Learning (CBL) - as teaching activity in a course. | Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). |
| 12 | Lai 2016 [ | n = 50 quasi-experimental single group study. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study. | Not mentioned. | Simulation—using SP an online video peer assessment system. | Interpersonal Communication Assessment Scale (ICAS). |
| 13 | Martin and Chanda 2016 [ | n = 28 prelicensure nursing students enrolled in a mental health nursing theory and clinical course. | Design: quasi-experimental, one group. | Not mentioned. | Simulation using SP (three stations; two simulation sessions). | Confidence with Communication Skill Scale. |
| 14 | Taghizadeh et al. 2017 [ | n = 66 last year nursing students and n = 132 patients. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study. | Not mentioned. | Communication Training Course. lectures and workshops using educational equipment and technology. | Student´s Communication skills checklist created by the authors for this study. |
| 15 | Shorey et al. 2018 [ | n = 124 first-year undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the nursing course. | Design: quasi-experimental single group study. | Bandura´s self-efficacy theory (1997). | Blended learning environment face-to-face each week for tutorials (Role-playing and problem-based | Blended Learning Satisfaction Scale (BLSS). |
| 16 | Blake and Blake 2019 [ | n = 32 nursing students in their capstone course from a population of N = 35. | Design: quasi-experimental single group. | Not mentioned. | Simulation—role-playing, debriefing | Self-efficacy related to therapeutic communication, developed by the authors for this study. |
| 17 | Donovan and Mullen 2019 [ | n = 116 undergraduate nursing students registered for three successive mental health nursing courses during academic year from a population of N = 160 (RR 72.5%). | Design: quasi-experimental single group study. | Constructivist learning theory (Merriam et al. 2012). | Simulation—using SP. Lectures on therapeutic communication techniques, which included readings, video clips with discussion; simulation; debriefing. | Confidence Simulation, with a dimension about level of confidence of learned therapeutic communication skills. |
| 18 | Gaylle 2019 [ | n = 65 senior students enrolled in a psychiatric clinical rotation at a public university from a population of N = 67 (RR 97%). (IG = 32; CG = 33). | Design: quasi-experimental, two group study. | Not mentioned. | Simulation—using SP (four scenarios) briefing; simulation; In simulation-debriefing. | Students’ knowledge of psychiatric assessment. |
| 19 | Ok et al. 2019 [ | n = 85 third-year nursing students enrolled in a course on mental health and psychiatric at two different universities from a population of N = 103 (RR 82.5%). (IG = 52; CG = 33) | Design: quasi-experimental two group | Not mentioned. | Simulation—using SP theoretical lecture on communication skills and schizophrenia; simulation using SP, debriefing. | Communicational Skills Inventory (CSI) |
IG, Intervention Group; CG, Control Group; SP, Standardized Patient; CKT, Communication Knowledge Test; SSPE, Student Self-Evaluation of Standardized Patient Encounter; SPIR, Standardized Patient Interpersonal Ratings; CST, Communication Skills Training; CCT, Clinical Competence Tool; CEQ, Course Experience Questionnarie; PIMC, Perceived Importance of Medical Communication; CSAS, Communication Skill Attitude Scale; CES, Caring Self-Efficacy Scale; DAS, Death Anxiety Scale; CAT, Communication Assessment Tool; CAS, Communication Ability Scale; CIS, Clinical Interaction Scale; IDC, Interpersonal Dysfunction Checklist; C-SPSI-R, Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised; IPCS, Interpersonal Communication Skills; SLS, Student Learning Satisfaction; SPEs, Standardized Patient Experiences; CBL, Case-Based Learning; PSI, Problem-Solving Inventory; IMMS, Instructional Materials Motivation Scale; ICAS, Interpersonal Communication Assessment Scale; BLSS, Blended Learning Satisfaction Scale; C-NSSES, Communication Skills subscale of the Nursing Students Self-Efficacy Scale; CSI, Communicational Skills Inventory; STAI, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
Main results and conclusions.
| Order Number | 1st Author, Date (Country) | Findings | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Becker et al. 2006 [ | No significant differences were found between the two groups on measures of interpersonal skills, therapeutic communication skills, and knowledge of depression. | Further research is needed, this study support the use of SPs in nursing education for communication skills training. |
| 2 | Baghcheghi et al. 2011 [ | The results showed that no significant difference between the two groups in students’ communication skills scores before the teaching intervention (p > 0.05), but did show a significant difference between the two groups in the interaction skills and problem follow up sub-scales scores after the teaching intervention (p < 0.05). | This study provides evidence that cooperative learning is an effective method for improving and increasing communication skills of nursing students especially in interactive skills and follow up the problems sub-scale, thereby it is recommended to increase nursing students’ participation in arguments by applying active teaching methods which can provide the opportunity for increased communication skills. |
| 3 | Kim et al. 2012 [ | The communication skill score of the experimental group that participated in simulation-based education increased 0.58 points and the control group increased 0.09 points, indicating a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.020). | Simulation-based education in maternity is effective in promoting communication skill and clinical competence. |
| 4 | Wittenberg-Lyles et al. 2012 [ | The practical nurses’ exposure to the COMFORT communication training allowed students to see its benefits, resulting in more positive attitudes to communication skills learning as measured by the CSAS (p < 0.000). The COMFORT communication curriculum also increased perceptions of the importance of communication in nurse training as assessed by the PIMC (p < 0.009). In addition, COMFORT training resulted in an increase in practical nurses’ reported self-efficacy in using communication skills with patients and families, although no statistically differences were found (p = 0.052). | This study shows promise for the feasibility and use of the CONFORT curriculum for nursing students communication training. |
| 5 | Jo and An 2013 [ | Attitudes toward death (p = 0.027) and communication skills (p = 0.008) appeared to have significantly increased in the experimental group. However, death anxiety (p = 0.984) did not significantly differ between the two groups after intervention. | The course is effective in reducing negative attitudes toward death and increasing the communication skills of nursing students. |
| 6 | Lau and Wang 2013 [ | There were significantly increase between students: the mean pre-test and post-test scores for communication ability (p = 0.015). there were improvement in the scores for content of communication and handling of communication barriers (p < 0.001). In addition, the training was practically important, as indicated by the effect size of 2.39 in the score for the handling of communication barriers. Although the scales of communication ability, clinical interaction, interpersonal dysfunction, and social problem solving were improved, they were not statistically significant (p >.05). | The course was effective in improving communication skills in nursing students. |
| 7 | Lin et al. 2013 [ | All participants expressed high SLS (94.44%) and showed significant (p ≤ 0.025) improvements on IPCS total scores, interviewing, and counseling. However, there were no significant differences between groups (p = 0.374). | Using SPs to teach IPCS to nursing students produced a high SLS, but future studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of SP feedback and group discussions. |
| 8 | Lau and Wang 2014 [ | The analysis showed a significant difference between the mean pretest and posttest scores of the subscales (p = 0.003) and total communication skills scores (p < 0.0001). | The Educational Summer Camp Program was effective in improving nursing students´communication skills. |
| 9 | Webster 2014 [ | The students did not demonstrate significant improvement on 2 of the 14 evaluation criteria -approaching client with a nonthreatening body stance (p = 0.218) and introducing self (p = 0.74)- although there was improvement noted for the two evaluation criteria. | This study suggests that the use of SPEs is an effective methodology for promoting therapeutic communication skills in nursing students. |
| 10 | Bloomfield et al. 2015 [ | After the simulation, self-perceived confidence levels when communicating with the family and friends of dying patients increased significantly (p < 0.05). The majority of students reported increased levels of competence when talking with the family of dying patients (p < 0.05). | Simulation was found to be an effective means of preparing nursing students to communicate with dying patients and their families. |
| 11 | Yoo and Park 2015 [ | A significant increase in the communication skills score of the intervention group was observed (p < 0.001) while a slight increase was observed for the control group (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the communication skills of the two groups (p < 0.001). A significant decrease in the problem solving ability score of the intervention group was observed (p < 0.001), whereas an increase was observed in the control group (p < 0.001). A significant improvement was observed for the problem-solving ability of the intervention group, as compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Finally, scores for learning motivation showed a significant increase (p < 0.001), for the intervention group, whereas a decrease (p > 0.05), was observed for the control group. Moreover, a significant difference was found in the learning motivation scores of the two groups (p < 0.001). | This finding suggests that case-based learning is an effective learning and teaching method. |
| 12 | Lai 2016 [ | The scores given by the peers were significatly corelated with those given by experts (r = 0.36, p<0.05). | The nursing students had improved their skills in therapeutic communication as a result of the networking peer assessment. Expert evaluation scores showed that students’ communication performance, when involved in peer assessments, significantly improved. |
| 13 | Martin and Chanda 2016 [ | There was significant improvement (p = 0.000), in student’s self-reported confidence with their communication skills and knowledge following a mental health simulation experience using standardized patients. | A therapeutic communication mental health simulation give before students participating in their clinical experience should be integrated into undergraduate nursing education. |
| 14 | Taghizadeh et al. 2017 [ | The results showed that there was a significant difference between the mean quality of patients’ care prior to and following the intervention (p≤0.001). Also, there was a significant difference between the means for nursing student’s’ communication skills before and after the intervention (p≤0.001). Moreover, there was a significant correlation between mean scores of students and the quality of care and communication skills (p≤0.001). | The course was effective in improving communication skills in nursing students. |
| 15 | Shorey et al. 2018 [ | There was a statistically significant increase in the BLSS scores from pre-test to post-test (p = 0.012). Similarly, a statistically significant increase in the CSAS scores were seen from pre-test to post-test (p = 0.042). There was also a statistically significant increase in the C-NSSES scores from pre-test to post-test (p = 0.003). | Participants had enhanced satisfaction levels with blended learning pedagogy, better attitudes in learning communication skills, and improved communication self-efficacies at posttest. |
| 16 | Blake and Blake 2019 [ | An improvement in student self-efficacy in therapeutic communication skills after the course simulation as indicated by the five questions were all significant with p < 0.01. | The lab simulation was helpful in improving students regarding their therapeutic communication skills. |
| 17 | Donovan and Mullen 2019 [ | The pre/post results suggest the standardized simulated experience enhanced nursing student confidence p < 0.001. | Simulation with SPs promoted an active learning environment that highlighted individualized confidence in therapeutic communication skills through a realistic application process. |
| 18 | Gaylle 2019 [ | The overall change from pretest to posttest for therapeutic communication for both groups combined was statistically significant and practically important with a large effect size of 1.34 (Cohen d). On average, both groups showed statistically significant improvement (p < 0.05). | In simulation debriefing is an effective tool for teaching therapeutic communication to nursing students. |
| 19 | Ok et al. 2019 [ | There are differences between the students who received and who did not receive SPS in terms of the scores obtained from the STAI-S (p = 0.01), STAI-T (p = 0.046), but there are not statistically differences in CSI (p = 0.09), except for the subscale cognitive of the CSI (p = 0.043). | Simulation with SPs may help nursing students gain experience and increase communication skills with patients. |
SP, Standardized Patient; SLS, Student Learning Satisfaction; CIS, Clinical Interaction Scale; IPCS, Interpersonal Communication Skills; SPSI-R, Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised; SPEs, Standardized Patient Experiences; BLSS, Blended Learning Satisfaction Scale; CSAS, Communication Skill Attitude; C-NSSES, Communication Skills subscale of the Nursing Students Self-Efficacy Scale; SPS, Standardized Patient Simulation; CSI, Communicational Skills Inventory; STAI, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
Results of critical appraisal for quasi-experimental studies.
| Order Number | MAStARI Question | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| 1 | Baghcheghi et al. 2011 [ | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 2 | Kim et al. 2012 [ | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 3 | Wittenberg-Lyles et al. 2012 [ | Yes | Unclear | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 4 | Jo and An 2013 [ | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 5 | Lau and Wang 2013 [ | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 6 | Lau and Wang 2014 [ | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 7 | Webster 2014 [ | Unclear | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 8 | Bloomfield et al. 2015 [ | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | 6 |
| 9 | Yoo and Park 2015 [ | Yes | No | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 10 | Lai 2016 [ | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 7 |
| 11 | Martin and Chanda 2016 [ | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 8 |
| 12 | Taghizadeh et al. 2017 [ | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 8 |
| 13 | Shorey et al. 2018 [ | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 8 |
| 14 | Blake and Blake 2019 [ | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | 5 |
| 15 | Donovan and Mullen 2019 [ | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 16 | Gaylle 2019 [ | Unclear | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 7 |
| 17 | Ok et al. 2019 [ | Yes | No | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 6 |
Results of critical appraisal for Randomized Controlled Trials.
| Order Number | MAStARI Question | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Q12 | Q13 | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||||
| 1 | Becker et al. 2006 [ | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 10 |
| 2 | Lin et al. 2013 [ | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 9 |